Hundreds of top environment lawyers are suing theNew Zealandgovernment over what they say is its “dangerously inadequate” plan to reduce emissions to net zero by 2050.
It is the first time the country’s emissions reduction plan has faced litigation, and the lawyers believe it is the first case globally that challenges the use of forestry to offset emissions.
Lawyers for Climate Action NZ and the Environmental Law Initiative – two groups representing more than 300 lawyers – filed judicial review proceedings against the government in Wellington’s high court on Tuesday.
The groups have provided the Guardian with first access to the claim, which argues the government has abandoned dozens of tools to tackle emissions, failed to adequately consult the public, and too heavily relies on high-risk carbon capture strategies such as forestry.
The government’s plan was “fundamentally unambitious” and a “dangerous regression” for the country, Jessica Palairet, the president of Lawyers for Climate Action NZ told the Guardian.
“As it stands, the government’s emissions reduction plan will carry huge consequences for our country. We don’t take this step lightly, but the plan needs to be challenged,” Palairet said.
The plan must be robust and transparent, in line with the country’s chief climate law – the climate change response (zero carbon) amendment act – she said.
In 2019, the Labour government passed thatlandmark climate legislationcommitting the nation to reducing its domestic carbon emissions to net zero by 2050 and meeting its commitments under the Paris climate accords. Governments are legally required to set an emission reductions plan every five years detailing how New Zealand will meet its greenhouse gas targets.
The right-wing coalition government has committed to the 2050 net zero emissions target. Its first emissions reduction plan released in December – shows New Zealand is on track to reach emissions targets up until 2030, but will not meet the targets in five years after. The government said it will address those targets in 2030.
The plan also says the country is also on track to meet its long-term emissions goal but climate experts warn the government’s methods could end up derailing progress.
The legal claim includes two primary challenges. The first argues the government tossed out dozens of credible climate policies – including the clean car discount and a gas transition plan – and did not adequately consult the public over the changes.
The lawyers also claim that the government is relying on “high risk” methods such as planting hundreds of thousands of hectares of introduced pine trees to offset emissions, and capturing carbon underground, with few alternatives to fall back on if something goes wrong.
Someexperts have warnedachieving a net reduction in emissions primarily through planting trees is impossible to sustain in the long term, as forests could be destroyed though fire or extreme weather and do not store carbon for ever.
Dr Christina Hood, the head of energy and climate policy consultancy Compass Climate, told the Guardian the government’s emissions reduction plan was “incredibly shortsighted”.
Hood said there is an assumption that as long as New Zealand plants trees, it can emit as much as it likes, but warned that was a “blinkered” approach that ignores the future.
“In our law … there’s a responsibility to meet all of the targets, not just the current one.”
While New Zealand’s total contribution to global emissions is small at 0.17%, its gross emissions per capita are high. The country has also been among the world’s worst performers on emission increases. Between 1990 and 2018, its emissions rose 57% – the second-greatest increase of all industrialised countries.
Climate scientists and environment groups are worried the government’s broader environmental agenda will derail the country’s ability to reduce emissions and protect its unique species.
Since taking office, the government has promised to restart offshore oil and has set aside $200m of its budget to invest in gas exploration. It plans to boost mineral exports to $3bn by 2035, at the same time it hasslashed funding to conservation and climate initiatives. Thecontroversial new fast-track lawthat is pushing through major infrastructure projects, including mining, has been described as“egregiously damaging”for the environment and risks a path towards a greener future.
The minister of climate change, Simon Watts, would not be commenting on the judicial review, as the matter is now before the courts, his office told the Guardian.
The Green Party is backing the claim because the government’s plan “is not worth the paper that it is written on”, its co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick told the Guardian.
Climate litigation as a form of activism is gaining momentum around the world. In 2024 the high court found theUK government’s climate action plan was unlawful, as there was not enough evidence that there were sufficient policies in place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Palairet hopes this case will force the government to come up with a new plan.
“The reason why we take a case like this to a court is to scrutinise and question whether the government statements match up with reality.”